Continuing on Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil (1963), on how ordinary people can do—or acquiesce to—horrific things. How do people rationalize this? What's required to cut through the environmental haze and have an authentic moral reaction? What can we apply from this story to our present political circumstances? Also, how was genocide a new type of crime, and what's the best rationale for punishing it? We talk justice, revenge, and ways that we too might be morally mass-confused.

Comments

thanks you guys are on a roll with sticking to the text and really working bits thru, I think Arendt (like Heidegger, Benjamin, and all) was really struggling with how to come to terms with a truly novel historical development (and not just say as we do with emerging phenomena like platform/surveillance capitalism that this just a reiteration of the printing press or the tractor, or to resurrect some antiquated notion of the “Sovereign” or such), one sees that now with the work of folks Saskia Sassen as she tries to move past just repeating outdated modes/models to try and begin to outline the assemblages and brutal impacts of new kinds/economies of extraction:

Here’s an example of ‘boiling the frog’; from Helmut Thielicke – a Christian pastor under the Nazi’s in Germany. At school people were required to frequently pledge allegiance to Germany. This meant an endorsement of the present regime in some way – and yet, when was the point that it was right to object or not comply?

I love the podcast and have been listening to it for several years, but this is my first comment. In listening to this episode and considering its application to our current society and societal norms, I have continually comeback to the idea of government drone strikes on either non-combat targets (whether intentional, e.g., issuing a strike against a religious leader who is not technically a combatant or “terrorist,” or unintentionally on civilians in other countries). In the U.S., and in particular in the cities in which I have lived which are near U.S. military bases, It appears to me that the vast majority of citizens may question the benefit of such strikes and view strikes that kill civilians as unfortunate, but they do not view the strike as murder or consider the government agents who authorized, were involved in, or carried out the strikes to be criminals or murderers. In 20-30 years, if the world’s view on drone strikes changes, would another country, or the ICC, be justified in detaining and prosecuting a drone pilot, or in perhaps a more analogous situation to Eichmann, a government official who oversaw / ensure the delivery of the target details or the weaponry used in the strikes? I realize the situation is not exactly analogous in that the goal of drone strikes is not to eliminate an entire population, civilian or otherwise, the scale of the deaths is much less, and at least as of today the government is not totalitarian, but it still strikes me as a relevant question as to whether those individuals should, as Eichmann, have a responsibility to exercise their own judgment and object to the actions, or otherwise retain some amount of moral culpability. Any thoughts or criticisms are appreciated.

my guess is the Arendtian concern would be more about the sort of abstraction/distance that comes with killing via electronics from far away, dropping bombs and then driving home to the burbs for dinner if you will, so hard for us to grasp in any concrete way and so to think thru, take response-ability for,

About The Partially Examined Life

The Partially Examined Life is a philosophy podcast by some guys who were at one point set on doing philosophy for a living but then thought better of it. Each episode, we pick a text and chat about it with some balance between insight and flippancy. You don’t have to know any philosophy, or even to have read the text we’re talking about to (mostly) follow and (hopefully) enjoy the discussion

Become a PEL Citizen!

As a PEL Citizen, you’ll have access to a private social community of philosophers, thinkers, and other partial examiners where you can join or initiate discussion groups dedicated to particular readings, participate in lively forums, arrange online meet-ups for impromptu seminars, and more. PEL Citizens also have free access to podcast transcripts, guided readings, episode guides, PEL music, and other citizen-exclusive material. Click here to join.